and conciseness.

It may be well to add here the Abbé Gosselin's explanation of this
_mandement_: "Three principal works are due to this document as the
glorious inheritance of the seminary of Quebec. In the first place we
have the natural work of any seminary, the training of ecclesiastics and
the preparation of the clergy for priestly virtues. In the next place we
have the creation of the chapter, which the Bishop of Petræa always
considered important in a well organized diocese; it was his desire to
find the elements of this chapter in his seminary, when the king should
have provided for its endowment, or when the seminary itself could bear
the expense. Finally, there is that which in the mind of Mgr. de Laval
was the supreme work of the seminary, its vital task: the seminary was
to be not only a perpetual school of virtue, but also a place of supply
on which he might draw for the persons needed in the administration of
his diocese, and to which he might send them back when he should think
best. All livings are connected with the seminary, but they are all
transferable. The prelate here puts clearly and categorically the
question of the transfer of livings. In his measures there is neither
hesitation nor circumlocution. He does not seek to deceive the sovereign
to whom he is about to submit his regulation. For him, in the present
condition of New France, there can be no question of fixed livings; the
priests must be by right removable, and subject to recall at the will of
the bishop; and, as is fitting in a prelate worthy of the primitive
Church, he always lays stress in his commands on the _holy practice of
the early centuries_. The question was clearly put. It was as clearly
understood by the sovereign, who approved some days later of the
regulation of Mgr. de Laval."

It was in the month of April, 1663, that the worthy prelate had obtained